Outstanding Essay on OOTP Defense

[Furious]

Hi, I’m the guy who wrote the three articles on defense. Thank you, jpeters1734, for recommending them.

I’d like to point out that while I think most of what is in these three articles would be applicable to any OOTP league, I did write them specifically for the GMs in my league. So when I say stuff like “the minimum Range requirement for a good shortstop is 70”, I say that because I believe it is true in my league. You may be in a league where the average Range rating for a shortstop is lower than it is in my league, and in that case a 65 or even 60 Range rating at SS might be just fine. The purpose of these articles was to help GMs in my league understand what they need to do to build a good defense in my league, and the minimum ratings requirements were based on observing Zone Rating and Defensive Efficiency statistics in my league.

[Garlon]

Probability is probability. OOTP is just calculating it. There is no extra random number generation thrown in there. Probability also exists in real baseball too.

Consider this article:

https://community.fangraphs.com/how-...ally-the-best/

[tonnage]

Originally Posted by Furious

Hi, I’m the guy who wrote the three articles on defense. Thank you, jpeters1734, for recommending them.

I’d like to point out that while I think most of what is in these three articles would be applicable to any OOTP league, I did write them specifically for the GMs in my league. So when I say stuff like “the minimum Range requirement for a good shortstop is 70”, I say that because I believe it is true in my league. You may be in a league where the average Range rating for a shortstop is lower than it is in my league, and in that case a 65 or even 60 Range rating at SS might be just fine. The purpose of these articles was to help GMs in my league understand what they need to do to build a good defense in my league, and the minimum ratings requirements were based on observing Zone Rating and Defensive Efficiency statistics in my league.

I think what you wrote is awesome and good information regardless of league. Thanks for that. Cheers!

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Garlon

Probability is probability. OOTP is just calculating it. There is no extra random number generation thrown in there. Probability also exists in real baseball too.

Consider this article:

https://community.fangraphs.com/how-...ally-the-best/

Of course randomness exists in real baseball but you cannot empirically test its effect because reality is just a single simulation.


In contrast, you can test the effect of randomness in OOTP, which is why I pointed out that. So while it might be satisfying to squeeze that last pct of performance out of your roster, it pales in comparison to what is out of your control.


And if you are playing for money, those tiny pcts of improvement might pay off over time. But I suspect for most people, it would be a lot of extra work for marginal gain. So the most important thing is to play in the way that is most enjoyable for you. Using the game's overall rating for players is a lot less work and might cost you (on average across many sims), maybe 1-2 games per season. But RNG can easily swing your team up or down 10 games, and it's completely out of your control.

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by Furious

Hi, I’m the guy who wrote the three articles on defense. Thank you, jpeters1734, for recommending them.

I’d like to point out that while I think most of what is in these three articles would be applicable to any OOTP league, I did write them specifically for the GMs in my league. So when I say stuff like “the minimum Range requirement for a good shortstop is 70”, I say that because I believe it is true in my league. You may be in a league where the average Range rating for a shortstop is lower than it is in my league, and in that case a 65 or even 60 Range rating at SS might be just fine. The purpose of these articles was to help GMs in my league understand what they need to do to build a good defense in my league, and the minimum ratings requirements were based on observing Zone Rating and Defensive Efficiency statistics in my league.

Exactly.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Brad K

There is no minimum acceptable fielding rating. It's always related to how well a player hits. This team won 107 games, the NL Pennant, and the World Series.

This got me wondering, what was the worst defensive team to win a WS? Is there a WS winner with a worse defense than the 1996 Yankees or the 2004 Red Sox? I know the latter get picked on more, but I think the former were even worse. The 1985 Royals, 2000 Yankees, and 2003 Marlins all belong in the convo too, but I'm wondering about teams before the 1980s.

I looked at the Pirates teams and their defense doesn't look that bad. It's got to be hard to be bad when Roberto Clemente is your CF, one of the greatest ever to play CF. Yes, I realize you're talking about your team and not a real life Pirates team. I'm just talking about Clemente though.

Whatever the case, while you can win a WS with a bad defensive team, you really need something else to go very right, be it pitching, offense, or just plain old luck. And I'd much rather rely on at least some good defense than not.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by kq76

This got me wondering, what was the worst defensive team to win a WS? Is there a WS winner with a worse defense than the 1996 Yankees or the 2004 Red Sox? I know the latter get picked on more, but I think the former were even worse. The 1985 Royals, 2000 Yankees, and 2003 Marlins all belong in the convo too, but I'm wondering about teams before the 1980s.

I looked at the Pirates teams and their defense doesn't look that bad. It's got to be hard to be bad when Roberto Clemente is your CF, one of the greatest ever to play CF. Yes, I realize you're talking about your team and not a real life Pirates team. I'm just talking about Clemente though.

Whatever the case, while you can win a WS with a bad defensive team, you really need something else to go very right, be it pitching, offense, or just plain old luck. And I'd much rather rely on at least some good defense than not.

Sorry to be the akshually guy, but Clemente was a RF, not CF

[Furious]

Thanks for being the akshually guy! I considered it but decided to pass.

Whatever the case, while you can win a WS with a bad defensive team, you really need something else to go very right, be it pitching, offense, or just plain old luck. And I'd much rather rely on at least some good defense than not.

This was what I tried to say, perhaps too long-windedly, in one of my articles. Thanks for the nutshell version.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by kq76

This got me wondering, what was the worst defensive team to win a WS? Is there a WS winner with a worse defense than the 1996 Yankees or the 2004 Red Sox? I know the latter get picked on more, but I think the former were even worse. The 1985 Royals, 2000 Yankees, and 2003 Marlins all belong in the convo too, but I'm wondering about teams before the 1980s.

I looked at the Pirates teams and their defense doesn't look that bad. It's got to be hard to be bad when Roberto Clemente is your CF, one of the greatest ever to play CF. Yes, I realize you're talking about your team and not a real life Pirates team. I'm just talking about Clemente though.

Whatever the case, while you can win a WS with a bad defensive team, you really need something else to go very right, be it pitching, offense, or just plain old luck. And I'd much rather rely on at least some good defense than not.

I went through my screenshots and found this.

[Garlon]

Brad K, your team has the best offense and the best pitching in the league. You outscored your opponents by 240 runs. Your defense is -33 ZR which cost you about 4 wins.

Regardless of your team being 10th in defense, which is last in your 1965 season, they still were only -33 ZR.

As I have stated, most players care going to be very close to average. However, it is possible to put extremely bad defensive teams together who cannot compete due to their defense.


If you had an average pitching staff but still had that offense and defense, then you probably end up with 89 or 90 wins. The Pythagorean would be about .553 winning percentage.

Your team scored 757 Runs. The average team in 1965 scored 647 runs. If we keep that offense of 757 runs and that defense of -33 runs and combine that with a pitching staff allowing 647 runs, then your team will score 757 runs and allow 680 runs (647 from pitching and another 33 from defense). 757 - 680 = +77 runs for the season. It takes (757 + 680)/162 = 8.87 runs per win for such a team. 77/8.87 = +8.68 wins above average. That turns out to be 81 + 8.86 = 89.86 wins for the season.

This is pretty much what the author of the article was trying to convey. If you just load up on hitters and disregard defense, it is not going to necessarily be a winning formula. 89 or 90 wins probably does not win a pennant. In your example, you have what would be a historically great team in the history of baseball with the best hitting and pitching in the league, so yeah, you can get away with giving up some wins defensively.


For a typical team trying to compete, sacrificing 4 wins on defense can be problematic.

[Furious]

So, a team with five Hall of Famers in its starting lineup and the best pitching in the league can win a lot of games? Who knew?

[Brad K]

Five HoFers... this is one of the rare occasions when I allow myself to spend money!

The purpose of this save is it see if I can start in 1961 with the benefits of the team having had the third best attendance in MLB in 1960 and build that into the top attendance team in MLB.

HoFers aside, here's what the bad fielders did.

Ron Santo .275/.337/.469 21 HRs, 4.1 WAR
Bob Bailey .275/.368/.381 10 HRs 3.1 WAR
Woodie Held .210/.271/.367 19 HRs 0.1 WAR

So it was a good decision to play two of the three players

Previous year Woodie Held was .241/.318/.417 25 HRs 2.5 WAR. That was clearly a net winner. It's possible to give up a lot of defense for a 60s SS with 25 HRs.

[Furious]

We're getting off-topic here, but it's very strange that OOTP rates Santo as a bad fielder. He won five Gold Gloves.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

Brad K, your team has the best offense and the best pitching in the league.

Yes. There's more than one way to win games. There is no single right answer in OOTP. And as I posted a bit earlier, 2 of the 3 terrible fielders still recorded significant positive WAR.

Anyway, I don't try to build a team in a particular way. I look for players who can play rather than being picky about how they play.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

For a typical team trying to compete, sacrificing 4 wins on defense can be problematic.

To which there are two solutions involving position players: Pick up four wins with better defense without hurting the offense, or pick up four wins on offense without hurting the defense. Either one works and both should be considered.

[Brad K]

Oh, yea, someone posted to the OOTP board several years ago that if you have a great defense you have to pay your pitchers more!

[Garlon]

Yes, there are multiple ways to build a team. Offense, Pitching, and Defense should all be considered when building any team because you are trying to maximize your run differential over the season.

What I take issue with is that your counterexample is not representative of 99% of the teams in history and this can be misleading to others who are trying to understand the message of the thread.

Your team is 1st out of 10 in Offense and 1st out of 10 in Pitching. Assembling such a team in a league with 10 totals teams is 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100 = 1% in a legitimately competitive league.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Sorry to be the akshually guy, but Clemente was a RF, not CF

IRL he did play more RF than CF, but Brad had him as a CF and from the comments I've read elsewhere, Clemente was so good he played a great CF as well. I never saw him myself, but if you read the comments from people who did, they're pretty effusive about his defensive prowess. My point is, having Clemente as your CF, at least in, I presume, his prime, is a mighty fine start to one's defense. Just look at Brad's screenshot. Who among us wouldn't take a 16 (out of 20) CF, with a 15 arm to boot, and especially one with the offense of Roberto Clemente? I'd be quite happy with him.

A 6 defense SS, however, yikes! But hey Derek Jeter happened too. (No, I don't think Jeter was that bad most of his career. I'm just poking the Yankees fans.)

[Brad K]

In this save computer managers played both Tony Oliva and Carl Yastrzemski in CF.

Memory is that by the end of the season Held's SS rating had dropped to 5. It all evened out to him being a replacement level SS. He didn't repeat his prior year performance of 2.5 WAR.

Anyway, Bailey and Santo produced enough offense to be in the lineup at their assigned positions.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Furious

We're getting off-topic here, but it's very strange that OOTP rates Santo as a bad fielder. He won five Gold Gloves.

Maybe OOTP is getting him for errors. He led the NL in errors three times in six years.1961-66.

If you're interested I could check his defensive skill ratings but I'd need to load a backup to do it.